Did the events at Pinjarra WA in 1834 merit yet another official apology to Aboriginal people?

Until recently, I had thought that the race to wokeness across the States and Territories was a simple contest between Victoria and the ACT.  I now think there is a “third horse” in the race, namely Western Australia, especially under Premier Roger Cook.  Cook has been described by WA TODAY as “a factional warlord in the left”.  The recent Apology is a case in point. 

The Apology raised eyebrows for several reasons.

The relevant events took place about 80 km south-west of Perth in 1834.  (This was almost 200 years ago and only five years after the foundation of the Swan River Colony in 1829).  The colony was granted Responsible Government in only 1890, the last of the Australian colonies to become self-governing, and it federated with the other colonies in 1901.

Since all this happened under British colonial administration and the settlers were overwhelmingly British born, one has to ask the question of why the contemporary WA Government feels the need to apologise, and why did the Apology take the form that it did.

My interpretation is as follows. 

Left-wing Labor is big on things like “truth-telling”, treaties, reparations, and apologies to Indigenous peoples, and it looks like the current WA Government was seeking a way for the State to engage in “truth-telling” and make its own apology to acknowledge “frontier wars” and atrocities.  The timing of the deaths at Pinjarra, some 56 years before the founding of the state of Western Australia, however, represented a bit of a problem.

To get around this the Cook Government seemingly got its Governor to do the apology or at least acquiesced to his apology.  (It is inconceivable that the Governor apologised unilaterally without consulting the WA Government.)  Premier Cook endorsed the apology in an on-line post . 

Governor Dawson’s apology referred to “dreadful wrongs perpetrated by the first Governor of Western Australia, Sir James Stirling, to Bindjareb Noongar people” and drew an analogy between Dawson’s own position of Governor and the role of Stirling as Governor in his day.

 “Governor Stirling came to this place in 1834 with an intent to punish the Bindjareb Noongar people.   I come to this place today as a Governor with a different intent …. The time has come – and the time is right – for the Governor to acknowledge the truth of the past actions of a predecessor”.  

I don’t buy the alleged equivalence at all.  Colonial Governor Stirling had very wide powers in his day and served the British Government, whereas contemporary State Governors in Australia have a largely ceremonial role.  The fact that both men are given the term “Governor” is largely coincidental.  It is drawing a very long bow for a present-day Governor to refer to a colonial Governor (200 odd years previous) as their “predecessor”.  Would anyone seriously seek to equate the present-day role of Margaret Beazley in NSW to the far greater responsibilities of Arthur Phillip in his day?

The whole apology seems contrived and an attempt at virtue signalling.  It is also aimed at promoting a particular interpretation of history and reinforcing the left’s political brand.  The WA Governor and the present State of WA were not responsible for the events at Pinjarra.  Any apology, if appropriate, should come from the British Government.

The Apology is also tainted by serious omissions and because some of the facts are contested.  Many first-hand accounts of what happened (written by the colonial side) were recorded in writing and are worth reading.  Aboriginal groups on the other hand had no written tradition, so no record (accurate or otherwise) exists from their side.

The only reference in the Apology to the purpose of the Pinjarra expedition is that “Following settler grievances and calls for protection, Governor Stirling then formed an intent to punish the Bindjareb Noongar tribe”. 

No mention is made of the fact that the major known purpose was to arrest persons wanted for the murder of a soldier (Private Nesbitt) and to ascertain whether the local tribe was responsible for the “almost unchecked commission of numerous outrages and atrocious murders on the white people resident in the district”.  At the outset of fighting at Pinjarra, an eyewitness account states that one soldier recognised “several of them to be of those who were present at Nisbett’s murder”.

The exact nature of the violence that took place on the day is contested.  Governor Dawson’s Apology noted that on the colonial side the casualties (from spearing) were one dead and two wounded, while Aboriginal losses were “impossible to determine”.  Accounts from the time generally put Aboriginal losses at 15 to 30 with one account suggesting up to 80 deaths.  The colonial force numbered about 25 police and soldiers, while one colonial account estimated that the “obnoxious tribe” numbered about 70 to 80 people.

Historian Keith Windschuttle argued that Pinjarra was “a real battle between warring parties, with casualties on both sides, rather than a massacre of innocents”.  It is possible to watch a debate on this matter between Windschuttle and Henry Reynolds, hosted by the ABC and draw relevant conclusions.

So, what is my assessment?

The initial conflict at Pinjarra was definitely more than a skirmish.  Available accounts suggest that the Aboriginal side stood their ground and threw spears before being fired upon and being overcome.  That said, resisting colonial force can be justified based on a perceived moral right on the part of original inhabitants to self-defence of one’s country.  Available accounts suggests that women and children were spared by the police suggesting that the estimate up to 80 Aboriginal deaths may be an exaggeration.

Insofar as the truth can be ascertained, the encounter seems to have had two distinct phases.  The initial fighting has the characteristics of a battle, with natives armed with spears fighting police and soldiers armed with muskets.  According to one account “the police rode forward, when the natives….. armed with spears, seeing only five men, commenced the attack. This little band, however, repulsed them.  After finding themselves in a losing position (following police reinforcements), the natives retreated into the Murray river”.

In the second phase, a number of accounts suggest that the Aborigines concealed themselves along the riverbank and were “gradually picked out of their concealment by the crossfire from both banks, until between 25 and 30 were left dead on the field and in the river”.  At this stage and based on such accounts, the accusation of massacre is arguable, based on those being shot at no longer being a threat.  Other accounts suggest that those in the river could still throw spears with surprising force and accuracy, making the notion of “massacre” less clear.

Overall, rising 200 years after the event and having access to written accounts from only one side, it is impossible to state with 100 per cent accuracy exactly what happened at Pinjarra in 1834.  It seems to be the case that native Aboriginal tribes in Western Australia were more hostile to colonists than in the Eastern states.  Present day morality is more sympathetic to the colonised than to the colonisers, even though the resulting nations in places like Australia, New Zealand and North America lead the world in many ways.  Similarly, if countries like Australia had been left untouched by the rest of the world, the indigenous population would have remained in a very backward state of development.

If shooting Aboriginal people that are no longer a threat represents a massacre and is morally unacceptable, then one must also consider whether attacks on white settler families should be similarly condemned.  Should Aboriginal people make any apology themselves?  Should we be judging past wrongs using contemporary moral standards or applying the moral standards of that time?

It seems to me that any apology for the events at Pinjarra in 1834 is a matter for the British, and that the Apology by the WA authorities is a combination of a stunt and a statement of ideology.

Given that the facts are not entirely cut and dried, I recommend that readers, especially in Western Australia, read both the Apology and the accounts from that time and form their own opinion.